General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Its called resource management, and its a part of any conflict. The archer with 20 arrows makes the same kind of decisions.
Its just magnified in D&D because the foe around the corner may just be a Pit Fiend.
Speaking of resource management - One of the biggest changes to the Wizard between 1e/2e and 3x (and imo probably the biggest contributor to 3x wizards power) hasn't been mentioned. In a "standard" game 3x wizards have extraordinarily easy access to scrolls and wands compared to prior edditions(yes they cost money and xp but a very minor amount compared to the benefit gained).
This means a 3x wizard rarely has to memorize knock, invisibility, protection from evil, tongues, teleport and a meriad of other useful spells. IME this is what took the wizard from a merely strong class to one that towered above non-casters (and to a lesser degree above spontaneous casters).
A 4e wizard has access to scrolls too - in the form of rituals, but the cost and casting time is a significant balancing facter (If the rogue can pick the lock in under a minute whereas the wizard takes 10 minutes has to spend money, and looks ridiculously conspicuous for those 10 minutes, there is actually a benefit to letting the rogue do it).
This isn't directly on the D&D topic, but an offshoot of Danny's post, having played M:TG prior to playing D&D and then reading this.
It hadn't occurred to me until now, but that would have been an excellent concept, in my opinion. As much as I hate negative effects, adding some of the countering elements from Magic would be interesting. Heck, add spells to the game which simply dangled a sword above the Wizard's head. Such as a spell that places a curse on the target, causing them to suffer damage equal to the level of every spell cast for a certain length of time, causing the wizard to think about whether he WANTS to cast a spell.
Wow, one night of sleep and this thread grew by 2 pages.
Before 3e, a lot of spells had negative effects. Haste ages everyone by a year. Polymorph et al all requires system shock rolls. Heck, old school fireball and lightning bolt were dangerous to use in confined spaces.
I think if WotC had learned anything from MtG is that a large number of players (expecially more casual players) hates disruption. They hate not being able to play out their game and hate "not doing anything". You bring a heavy disruption deck (permission, land destruction, discard etc.) into in the casual room on MTGO and people will hate you. Those disruption decks were often beatable but they were not fun to play against. They take 20 turns to kill you but you aren't allowed to do anything in those 20 turns.
You can call those casual players scrubs or whatever. But WotC knows that those scrubs are the ones who pays their salary.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 27th October 2009 at 04:55 PM..
My recent 2e experience is minimal, but I have a lot of recent 1e experience. So I'll talk about that.
The 3e wizard and the 1e wizard have somewhat similar playstyles, but the 3e wizard has more power in just about every case. Bonus spells for the 3e wizard are one of the biggest differences. Larger spellbooks for 3e wizards are another, along with free choice of spells with no chance of failure to learn.
On a less mechanical note, the 3e wizard also has a much vaster library of spells available... The 1e wizard is fairly limited, on the other hand.
There's spell disruption, too - it's a gigantic factor in 1e. A 1e wizard casting a high-level spell needs to be very, very careful, because any hit will disrupt him. A 3e wizard just needs the Concentration skill to cast defensively and will never risk disruption in practice.
Spell saves are very different, too - in 1e, they're based only on the class and level of the target. In 3e, they're based on the (probably maxed + buffed) ability scores of the caster and the spell level. And spell resistance in 3e is, IME, much, much weaker with feats like Spell Penetration picking up the slack.
Also, the 1e wizard couldn't use a crossbow. Or wear any kind of armor, and risk spell failure chances. OTOH, they could throw three darts every round, which I suppose is a perk!
-O
Some of these issues are, actually, pretty minor. Bonus spells, for example, are a fairly small speed-bump in the differences between 1e and 3e. Spell resistance isn't all that different from 1e (though it's pretty different from 2e with SR not affected by caster level at all). And I rarely saw a wizard player unable to obtain most of the spells he wanted in 1e or 2e.
Disruptability is one of the biggest differences in the game as the rules are written, but then I've rarely seen a game in which the 1e spellcasting initiative rules were ever strictly used. I've seen bigger differences between 2e and 3e games over spellcasting interruption, largely because those initiative rules were a lot clearer and easier to use. The big issue I see is that of pre-emptive disruption. Injure the caster before his turn and he couldn't cast. Catching him mid-cast was unnecessary before - but made necessary in 3e. That makes catching him in the act much harder.
The difference in saving throws is an interesting one, and a positive one for the most part in the base design. Any problems I've seen with them are more associated with point-buy build mentalities rather than rolling and with magic item creation making it too easy (and too dominant a strategy) to bump wizard offenses over non-wizard defenses.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Perhaps because if Aragorn, Frodo, Gimli, and Gandalf all sacrificed and struggled to reach Sauron's inner sanctum, it's really anti-climactic for Gandalf to strike the Dark Lord down with a single spell and a nat 1, before Sauron can even act.
Everyone (presumably) worked hard to get to the dramatic encounter and everyone ought to get a share of the fun and glory. It's a team game after all.
Blah, Gandalf should've just mass teleported everyone into Mount Doom.
What version of Tolkien's work did you read???? O_o
It's a reimagining of what the end of LoTR might have been like if it had been based on 3.x (though I suppose I did forget to include a cleric- Elrond?). After that Gandalf teleports over to Mt Doom and they drop the Ring in, (Frodo kills Gollum with an sneak attack of opportunity when Gollum lunges for the Ring). Many parties ignore the Razing of the Shire because the CR is too low to offer the heroes xp.
Last edited by Fanaelialae; 27th October 2009 at 05:02 PM..
Reason: good point- changed march to mt doom, to teleport to same
It's a reimagining of what the end of LoTR might have been like if it had been based on 3.x (though I suppose I did forget to include a cleric- Elrond?). After that Gandalf teleports over to Mt Doom and they drop the Ring in, (Frodo kills Gollum with an sneak attack of opportunity when Gollum lunges for the Ring). Many parties ignore the Razing of the Shire because the CR is too low to offer the heroes xp.
I'm not sure I'd find that anti-climactic. I'd be willing to bet the gaming group would be talking about that fight years later because the results really stand out. Can people say the same about all their knock-down, drag out, attrition-based fights against BBEGs?
It is a team game, sure. But what kind of team game is it? It used to be more like baseball. PCs did their job to advance the team, but did so in fairly different ways. A good DM would make sure everyone got their time at the plate - some classes were better at knocking it out of the park, but others consistently got on base. Now, it's a lot more like football without a passing game - everyone's participating at the snap but all plays are designed for short to moderate yard gains.
Then pick a Sorcerer. Wizards have changed. Wizards are generalists, the other arcane spellcasters are specialists and do other things better.
Wizards are not the do anything you want class anymore. They are more focused in 4E. They can do a bunch of stuff still, but if you want better damage, you need a arcane striker.
__________________ Don't believe the excuses....
ISP caps effect everyone. Fight for a CAP FREE internet. http://stopthecap.com
Some of these issues are, actually, pretty minor. Bonus spells, for example, are a fairly small speed-bump in the differences between 1e and 3e.
Really? I kinda think it's defining. In 3e, you can cast battle-defining spells much more often, and still have room left for a good, solid end-of-day nova. In 1e, you were a lot more limited.
Quote:
Spell resistance isn't all that different from 1e (though it's pretty different from 2e with SR not affected by caster level at all). And I rarely saw a wizard player unable to obtain most of the spells he wanted in 1e or 2e.
My experience disagrees, as far as 1e goes. Even with a rare 18 Intelligence, you'd miss 3 out of 20 spells. With a more-realistic 16 or 17, you'd miss more. Lots of folks didn't use these rules, mind you - but they're part of the system, so I think they have to be included in any discussion of it.
Quote:
Disruptability is one of the biggest differences in the game as the rules are written, but then I've rarely seen a game in which the 1e spellcasting initiative rules were ever strictly used.
OK. I use them, and the folks I was talking with while planning my 1e game use them. They actually work pretty well. Yes, there are a few different ways to interpret them, but a core element is that spellcasting is slow and you need to cover yourself before doing it.
Quote:
The difference in saving throws is an interesting one, and a positive one for the most part in the base design. Any problems I've seen with them are more associated with point-buy build mentalities rather than rolling and with magic item creation making it too easy (and too dominant a strategy) to bump wizard offenses over non-wizard defenses.
I don't like the differences in saving throws for basically the same reason I don't like the differences in bonus spells. For both clerics and wizards, it makes single-stat stacking absolutely insane.
Also, importantly, high-level 1e wizards facing high-level opponents could still easily have their spells saved against - opponent saves are usually fairly stable, and don't vary more than a few points from one another.
Not so in 3e, where a high-level presumably-buffed wizard only needs to target the appropriate defense to win. Target the big brutes with Will or Reflex, and you seldom (if ever) miss. It's like rock-paper-scissors where you already know what the other guy is throwing.
The difference in saving throws is an interesting one, and a positive one for the most part in the base design. Any problems I've seen with them are more associated with point-buy build mentalities rather than rolling and with magic item creation making it too easy (and too dominant a strategy) to bump wizard offenses over non-wizard defenses.
I think you are both missing where the saving throws change the most between 1st edition and 3rd edition.
In 1st edition, a 1st level character was not expected to make his saving throws. A 1st level character asked to make a saving throw would probably die. The odds of success were generally minimal, and often 16's or 17's were required. But, by the time the character obtained 12th level (or 17th level), the situation had changed radically. With a combination of magical defences and vastly improved saves, the high level character was expected to make most every saving throw, with characters often needing only 3's or 4's in every category to successfully save.
By way of contrast, in 3e, a 1st level character will probably make most or at least many of his saves versus level appropriate challenges. Generally, with a DC of around 12 or 13 and a bonus on the save of +2 to +6, the character can expect to make his save most of the time. Moreover, because of changes in the rules, most of the saves he faces at this level won't be the 'save or die' sort that a 1st level 1e character would face against a venomous spider or yellow mold. But, by the time the character obtains 12th level or 20th level, this situation has changed radically. Despite magical defences and somewhat impoved saves, the increased DC of 'level appropriate challenges' vastly outstrips the ability of the character to keep up. It's not at all unusual to see DC's of saves in the high 20's or even low 30's versus high level challenges, which means that the high level character - at least in the case of his 'poor saves' must be utterly optimized in his defenses and even then may face needing to roll a 16 or 17 to save. And, not only that, but he finds himself now facing true 'save or die' threats.
The result is that just as high level wizards are getting the ability to produce save or die threats, the targets of these threats are losing the ability to defend against them. Between increasing ability scores and increasing spell level and other bonuses (and rapidly inflating HD in the case of monsters), the ability to increase DC outstrips the ability to increase your saving throw bonuses. What this results in is something rarely seen in 1e. In 1e, faced with having to blow through spell resistance and a strong saving throw, wizards rarely relied on 'save or die' as their primary attack. Instead, they relied on damage dealing evocations that weren't capped by level and still did half damage on a save. But in 3rd edition, with capped damage dealing evocations, much higher hit point totals in monsters, and much easier 'save or die' attacks, high level 3e very quickly became a matter not merely of 'who loses their saving throw first', but of having in place before hand the right absolute defences (mindblack, freedom of action, death ward, hero's feast etc.) Since non-mages didn't have access to these absolute defences, they were generally helpless without mage support.
This was absolutely degenerate, especially if you allowed access to the full range of degeneracy available in the form of unbalancing PrCs and ill-thought out feats.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
To clarify, he liked the fact that you had to struggle, and claw your way to higher levels, before you would get the 'payoff'. We never played a campaign past 11th or 12th level, so while he liked the concept, he never achieved that super 'payoff'.
So now, he's kind of bitter that he never obtained the payoff, and now we are considering switching to 4E, and with everything being 'balanced', and in his opinion, spellcasters being 'neutered', he thinks he won't ever see that payoff.
Like I said, I have never seen 4E past 3rd level, but I have a feeling that high-level spellcasters in the new edition are none too shabby when it comes to what they can do.
His character in 4e would be able to be much more of a wizard starting out.. there is advancement and versatility yeah rituals are cool ... but no cataclismic advancement or realizing you now outshine everyone when you where outshined before (so no boom payload)... your abilities in combat are kind of distinct to you and mowing down minions is the specialty of Wizards... (if you only use phb you are the only one who specializes in this) there is no longer a need to make up for sucking for a long time... some of the games ummm broken builds are indeed wizard and the sorceror is a real damage dishing and movement machine(easier to play and feels powerful right away)... heck warlocks have some really cool style and have that "I am harder to play feel" but if I do it right I can be effective going down. Arcane power has some really nice stuff for arcanists (like a feat to make their spells areas of effect bigger and this makes them feel more wizardly for me). As a DM I love minions they are designed to make everyone feel cool but especially the Wizard!!! so using plenty of them can make the Wizard feel like a real go to dude. (there are certain tweaks that I find make minions more interesting... but even out of the box they are very nice for just this purpose).
You probably wont be able to convince him of anything... but I played AD&D wizards (a lot at low levels) and for me.. being able to play even low level wizards (but especially when you hit paragon level) in 4e is a real payoff in itself... though I DM most of the time... grr.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
I've seen the wizard in my campaign grow from 1st to 17th level- and the second wizard in the party, who joined at prolly around 6th level, grow to 16th level. So I have seen a lot of wizarding.
In my experience, wizards are bad ass. They don't do as much damage with a typical attack as a lot of other classes might, but they often do that damage to multiple enemies. Not to mention the conditions they impose.
I use a lot of varied encounters- some with minions, some without; some solos; a lot of custom creatures; mixes of creatures above and below the party's level; etc. The wizards usually not only hold their own, they often play a pivotal role in the combat.
The issue of rituals seems to have been discussed almost ad nauseum here, so I won't dwell on that except to say, once the party started using them, they never stopped. The cleric may have started the party's love of rituals, but both wizards have gotten in on it in spades.
I'm not sure I'd find that anti-climactic. I'd be willing to bet the gaming group would be talking about that fight years later because the results really stand out. Can people say the same about all their knock-down, drag out, attrition-based fights against BBEGs?
At least for my groups, the fights that we still talk about are the knock-down, drag out fights where we managed to snatch victory from the jaws of death. The insta-kill battles do get remembered, but only for their lameness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billd91
It is a team game, sure. But what kind of team game is it? It used to be more like baseball. PCs did their job to advance the team, but did so in fairly different ways. A good DM would make sure everyone got their time at the plate - some classes were better at knocking it out of the park, but others consistently got on base. Now, it's a lot more like football without a passing game - everyone's participating at the snap but all plays are designed for short to moderate yard gains.
I have to disagree. It's more that a single spell can no longer relegate the other classes to "cleanup duty".
In 3.x, it was amazingly simple for the wizard to cast one "I win" spell that effectively ended any chance of the fight being a challenge, and then stand back and let everyone else mop up. It wasn't even a high-level thing: Sleep, Color Spray, and Web were all examples of low-level spells that could easily render encounters a non-issue. If it only takes one spell to win the fight, being limited to three casts a day isn't an issue until the fourth battle of the day (and that limit only applies to a level 1 specialist).
IMO, being automatically promoted to MVP based on having picked the "correct" class is not good design.
You might be surprised. I personally think the 3e wizard was WAY more effective than the 2e wizard anyday and your assumptions don't actually hold true.
Take for example the spell list.
An AD&D non-specialist wizard only gained 1 spell every SPELL level (thus, 1 every other character level). Every other spell had to be either found or researched by the spellcaster. The 1e/2e wizard is NOT going to have the same number of spells as the equivalent levelled 3e wizard IMO and almost as importantly, what the 1e/2e wizard actually does have would be totally random compared to the best spells of that level which the 3e wizard would have.
Would you say that a Basic D&D magic-user vastily overpowers an AD&D one? In the red box set, a M-U got one new spell each spell level, and never had to roll to learn a new spell. I will argue that it hardly matters. Although magic-users can learn spells this way, they will eventually uncover enough scrolls and the occasional spellbook that they will cover most of the bases. In 3e, a wizard is more likely to find a spellbook and already know most of the spells. In AD&D, even a wizard of meager intelligence has an even chance of learning a spell, which means in a few levels, barring bad luck, he can know any spell he encounters. If he does not encouter it, he can research it.
Quote:
Similarly, with the shall we say draconian method of item creation, the 1e/2e wizard has to depend on mostly finding magic items so even at 10th level, a wizard would have an AC that even a kobold could still hit on a 15+
I'm pretty sure less than half of 3e wizards get into the item creation business themselves. Exception: scrolls and potions are relatively easy to make in AD&D, as in 3e.
Quote:
There's anorher factor that made spells more effective in 3.x. The creation of the weak save. A 20th level wizard targetting the weak save of a 20th level creature/enemy has a much higher chance of success than when he tried it at 1st level in 3e. This is in direct contrast with the 1e/2e wizard where a 20th level enemy can laugh in the face of magic since their saves scale upwards but spell effectiveness remains constant.
That is a potential issue, sure. There are ways to mitigate this, but in any case it's not a game-changer. No wizard of any edition would be likely to throw a spell unlikely to work at all.
I think you are both missing where the saving throws change the most between 1st edition and 3rd edition.
I tried to touch on this, but I might not have been explicit enough.
Yes, high-level foes save most of the time by design in 1e; the level of the wizard is irrelevant, barring spell resistance. It's a major factor to counteract save-or-die (or save-or-suck) effects; they're still scary, but it's not a sure thing.
By contrast, in 3e, it's the wizard's characteristics which matter most for saving throws. And because a creature's good and bad saving throws get so disparate at higher levels, it's a weak rock-paper-scissors game where you can basically tell what spells you should throw based on what you're facing.
1e wizards are awesome at taking out hordes of low-level creatures. Besides the saves, just look at spells like cloudkill, sleep, color spray, etc. Against higher-level foes, they need to get more creative.
That is a potential issue, sure. There are ways to mitigate this, but in any case it's not a game-changer. No wizard of any edition would be likely to throw a spell unlikely to work at all.
How isn't that a game-changer? While wizards in any edition may not throw spells which will work, a 3e wizard has a lot more spells which will probably work. It's the rock-paper-scissors game I alluded to above.
In 1e, a Wizard may not throw any spells which require saves against any high-level opponent. Rather, he might wait for them to get softened up by the fighters, and then throw a Power Word at them.
In 3e, a Wizard just picks their "Zap against Reflex" spell against a cleric, or a "Zap your Fortitude" spell against a wizard, or a "Zap your Will" spell against a brute. It's the weak save that's the issue - and a 3e wizard has both a limitless capacity to learn spells which target all defenses, and more spells prepared per day because of bonus spells.
If I wanted to give wizards something to do every round, I'd let them use swords or inspire their allies or something. Not sit around zotting like a Gauntlet character.
Brought a smile -- nice, rare reference to a video game I've actually played! It also neatly summarizes a key change.
It started, at least as I saw it, in 3e. Mages using crossbows?? Just a sign of the times, of how the game was putting more emphasis on combat. Come 4e, and the focus is so tightly on fighting it's a close-up.
See how it dominates the conversation here?
So, the new wizard -- indeed every character -- is made as able a combatant as the fighter. What necessarily follows? End of story! The spell-caster is already doing what the fighter does, so letting it do other (more "magical") things as well would throw the balance off.
. Although magic-users can learn spells this way, they will eventually uncover enough scrolls and the occasional spellbook that they will cover most of the bases. In 3e, a wizard is more likely to find a spellbook and already know most of the spells. In AD&D, even a wizard of meager intelligence has an even chance of learning a spell, which means in a few levels, barring bad luck, he can know any spell he encounters. If he does not encouter it, he can research it.
There was an upper limit to how many spells a wizard could know of any level so if you rolled poorly, (a 14 for example only netted you 9 spells per level) and that bad luck seemed to happen with regularity for wizards ("fireball spell, roll for scroll and spellbook saving throws)
I think you're underselling just how many spells a 3e wizard at any equivalent level would have. Not only would they have the bases covered, but a 3e wizard has the ENTIRE field covered. A pre 3e wizard didn't really select their spells, the DM decided what spells they got and if lady luck frowned on them, they could even lose all of that thanks to spellbook destruction.
Which is a huge game changer. Take the existence of the scry-buff-teleport schtick that came in 3.x.Not only is it common, but WOTC actually designed spells to counter such tactics. In previous editions, there's absolutely no certainity you would even know all the spells in that chain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawsplay
I'm pretty sure less than half of 3e wizards get into the item creation business themselves. Exception: scrolls and potions are relatively easy to make in AD&D, as in 3e.
I don't consider the following easy.
Wizards needed to be name level to create scrolls, priests needed to be level 7
Seriously, contrast the effort and time to create a scroll of protection from poison in 2e with the scroll of neutralize poison in 3e.
It literally takes over 2 weeks to create the scroll in 2e...I'm not seeing how item creation in 2e is easy AT ALL Especially compared to 3e.
Take the existence of the scry-buff-teleport schtick that came in 3.x. Not only is it common, but WOTC actually designed spells to counter such tactics. In previous editions, there's absolutely no certainity you would even know all the spells in that chain.
And even if you did, you wouldn't have done it, because buff spells were both relatively ineffective compared to dropping a fireball or lightning bolt and relatively unnecessary because your comrades were already nasty combatants in and of themselves capable of ginsuing any monster in the manual.
Alot of 3rd edition's spell problems can be summed up as, "We knew what was broken in 1e (fireball, for example) so we carefully nerfed it, but we never understood why Gygax had nerfed spells like haste, polymorph other, etc so we took the limitations off the spells." In fact, alot of 3rd editions balance problems come from trying to fix 1e's balance problems and overcompensating. And yes cleric my old friend, I'm looking straight at you.
Sometimes it worked ok (evocation spells, lower level wizards, rogues, etc.) and sometimes it didn't (CoDzilla, essential buffs at high level, etc.).
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
I want to add to the very good analysis of Celebrim and Allister H that pre 3rd edition there were two other balancing factors:
1. Very low hp which are not as easily increased as in 3.x A solid blow from a fighter could outright kill him. Magical defenses like stoneskin needed expensive components to cast and didnīt last for a long time.
2. Spell preperation time: 10 min per level of spell. (So preparing 2 3rd level spells are one hour to prepare.) So a cast out high level spellcaster needs days of rest to replenish his spells and thus has an even harder time preserving his power in the course of an andventure.
Or wear any kind of armor, and risk spell failure chances. OTOH, they could throw three darts every round, which I suppose is a perk!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
